WWE Told Fans To Shut Up About Three Hour Raws, But Should We?

On the debut episode of the WWE Network’s Bring it to the Table, they broached a debate that has reverberated amongst wrestling fans for a while. The question at hand? Is Monday Night RAW too long? Is three hours too long for one wrestling show? The three men of Bring it to the Table, Peter Rosenberg, JBL, and Paul Heyman, had differing opinions, but they aren’t the only ones. So, should RAW be three hours?

httpss://youtube.com/watch?v=8uBhtn5uMYQ

The cop out would be to say yes, if they can fill the three hours with quality content. Football is still very popular, if not as popular as it used to be, and their games regular run longer than three hours. That happens something with baseball games, and even the occasional hockey or basketball game. That being said, even in the world of football there are people who complain about a game lasting three hours. It’s a significant chunk of time to cut out of your day. Plus, RAW always goes a little over three hours.

It’s also easy to look at Smackdown, which runs two hours sharp, and is also a better show than RAW currently, and think cutting RAW down an hour would help. The issues may be partially time-related, but it’s also a matter of execution. You could probably make a good three-hour RAW, but the WWE doesn’t seem up to it. Now, if they cut RAW down to two hours, it would mean some wrestlers getting a lot less screen time. It would hurt their careers, and it’s hard to argue for doing that for somebody. However, from a purely content-focused standpoint, RAW should probably go down to two hours. It could streamline and become the all killer, no filler version of itself.

Do you think RAW should be cut down? Let us know in the comments, and check out the Wrestling Rumors Facebook page.